Something to consider when pushing housing density.

[Zorba]

I may have been a little unclear with the maintenance part.

The HOA my in-laws came from forbid the removal of trees without an arborist verifying the tree was dead prior to removal. All modifications of the home that were visible from the outside of the house(including the back of the house; they technically didn't own the back yard) had to go through the HOA first.

They forbid on street parking. They forbid any vehicular maintenance. They once got a verbal warning for airing up their tires in the driveway.

They forbid any moving pods of any kind. When they moved they had to put a PODS container outside the HOA (a disused parking lot nearby), rent a uhaul, load the uhaul at the house, ferry it outside the HOA, unload the uhaul into the PODS container, repeat.

If they didn't own the backyard it sounds like a townhouse or garden home neighborhood, which does have much stricter rules because the HOA owns the outside of the property.

The tree thing and street parking might be a city thing as well, especially if the streets are narrow as the often are in townhome complexes the city bans street parking for emergency vehicle access. But also with the trees, if the HOA owns the outside it's their tree not yours. I don't get why people move into places that have full outside maintenance taken care of then get upset that they can't do whatever they want to it.

Again though for SFH HOAs these super strict rules are rare, people find condo and garden home HOA rules and act that is all HOAs. Go try to do car maintenance or put a PODS in an apartment parking lot and they will also tell you to stop.

I've lived in 5 different HOAs, none have banned car mx.

 

[fskimospy]

I guess we could say, if density begets more people moving into an area, that's fine: we're just satisfying the latent demand for people wanting to live in high amenity, dense neighborhoods near employment, which is a good thing (whereas satisfying the demand for shorter commutes via personal automobile through "one more lane" is a bad thing).

Regardless, if there is a concern regarding government services: good news on that front - they're cheaper to deliver per capita when you have to serve a denser population. Suburbs and detached housing are money sinks when it comes to infrastructure costs the government bears.

My entire point is, and always has been, that people should live in whatever environment they want. If they want to live in Manhattan, great. If they want to live in the middle of nowhere, that’s fine too.

Every other argument is essentially people attempting to justify why they should be able to force other people to live in circumstances they don’t want to.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If they didn't own the backyard it sounds like a townhouse or garden home neighborhood, which does have much stricter rules because the HOA owns the outside of the property.

The tree thing and street parking might be a city thing as well, especially if the streets are narrow as the often are in townhome complexes the city bans street parking for emergency vehicle access. But also with the trees, if the HOA owns the outside it's their tree not yours. I don't get why people move into places that have full outside maintenance taken care of then get upset that they can't do whatever they want to it.

Again though for SFH HOAs these super strict rules are rare, people find condo and garden home HOA rules and act that is all HOAs. Go try to do car maintenance or put a PODS in an apartment parking lot and they will also tell you to stop.

I've lived in 5 different HOAs, none have banned car mx.

It was a normal home, the HOA just had fucking bizarre rules regarding property boundaries. They still had to do outdoor maintenance mind you, they just couldn't touch the trees. Again, HOA requirement (the city had no such requirement for homes outside of this HOA).

Sure, that may not be every HOA, just going off my experience with them, limited though it may be.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So you're subscribing to the idea of "induced demand" for housing? You certainly see that concept on roadways (just one more lane will fix traffic), but I don't think we've ever seen that play out for housing. Plenty of cheap housing in places like St. Louis and Detroit, but you don't exactly see people flocking to those booming metropolises.

Rust belt cities are a little different, what began as a half-step from a ghost town has been normalizing over the last 20-50 years. Essentially they have more population than they have services and reasonable employment to account for, which negatively impacts the perception of the city, which leads to less development and less immigration (and often emigration). Once normalized and given time to exit the public perception, they'll continue growth.

Regarding denser cities 'freeing up' green spaces to revert, where has that happened? How many towns have been reclaimed by nature in the last 100 years from all this 'densification' into cities? How many SFH properties have been torn down and converted into wild forest/plain/swamp?

 

[Brainonska511]

Rust belt cities are a little different, what began as a half-step from a ghost town has been normalizing over the last 20-50 years. Essentially they have more population than they have services and reasonable employment to account for, which negatively impacts the perception of the city, which leads to less development and less immigration (and often emigration). Once normalized and given time to exit the public perception, they'll continue growth.

Regarding denser cities 'freeing up' green spaces to revert, where has that happened? How many towns have been reclaimed by nature in the last 100 years from all this 'densification' into cities? How many SFH properties have been torn down and converted into wild forest/plain/swamp?

The point of infill is to help stop the spread of sprawl. If people can't build in cities, they end up building further out. It's not about "returning land to nature" - it's about stopping further degradation of natural areas.

Density is also about giving people choice. We've created regulations that lead to most people having to choose a detached home, because we've made it illegal to build anything else in most places, and then we mistake those "choices" as some sort of societal preference for housing.

If you want a detached house, buy or rent one. If you want to live in a walkable neighborhood in a condo or multifamily home, you should be allowed to do that too. Unfortunately, we've made it really difficult to do the latter thanks to land use regulations.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The point of infill is to help stop the spread of sprawl. If people can't build in cities, they end up building further out. It's not about "returning land to nature" - it's about stopping further degradation of natural areas.

Density is also about giving people choice. We've created regulations that lead to most people having to choose a detached home, because we've made it illegal to build anything else in most places, and then we mistake those "choices" as some sort of societal preference for housing.

If you want a detached house, buy or rent one. If you want to live in a walkable neighborhood in a condo or multifamily home, you should be allowed to do that too. Unfortunately, we've made it really difficult to do the latter thanks to land use regulations.

I don't disagree that a lack of density increases demand for sprawl, I just disagree with the premise that increasing density absolutely prevents sprawl. I've seen the opposite in every place I've lived. I never see the march of progress halted or reversed, just slowed down at best.

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't disagree that a lack of density increases demand for sprawl, I just disagree with the premise that increasing density absolutely prevents sprawl. I've seen the opposite in every place I've lived. I never see the march of progress halted or reversed, just slowed down at best.

You've never seen in because we've basically made it illegal for this to even happen over the last 70 years.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's a thought experiment, don't be so literal.

The whole point is if your goal is to "preserve nature" and "natural spaces", you're better off building more density instead of putting in place policies that lead to detached sprawl.

The goal of this thread was not that. It was to introduce new scientific data into the discussion as to how to solve the problem of homelessness and the notion that simply increasing density is the solution.

According to the neurological study we must consider that the need for experiencing the natural world is a mental health REQUIREMENT and is a complication that must be considered when solving for homelessness,that there is a tension between solving one problem and exacerbating one we already have one that we may not be recognizing as actually real.

If you want a thought experiment cover the island with one big apartment. Where is the natural world then?

Densification involves creating more units in a lot serviced with sewage, electricity, gas and road access. That has zero to do with in the middle of the forrest. Bringing up being in the forrest is good has nothing to do with it. Want to be in the forrest? Move your butt and get to it.


This 305 acre conservation area is within minutes of the biggest shopping malls in my city, Markville Mall. It is marked as CF Markville on map. I am maybe 3km from it.

And we are known for urbal sprawl.

View attachment 89903

In the first place your reply has nothing to do with the example I gave to clarify the French in my earlier post and secondly, I will take my butt to the forest but first I demand a law that says that no children be allowed to grow up anywhere they are not in contact with the natural world when they go outside.

 

[Brainonska511]

The goal of this thread was not that. It was to introduce new scientific data into the discussion as to how to solve the problem of homelessness and the notion that simply increasing density is the solution.

According to the neurological study we must consider that the need for experiencing the natural world is a mental health REQUIREMENT and is a complication that must be considered when solving for homelessness,that there is a tension between solving one problem and exacerbating one we already have one that we may not be recognizing as actually real.

If you want a thought experiment cover the island with one big apartment. Where is the natural world then?

In the first place your reply has nothing to do with the example I gave to clarify the French in my earlier post and secondly, I will take my butt to the forest but first I demand a law that says that no children be allowed to grow up anywhere they are not in contact with the natural world when they go outside.

Want to solve homelessness: build more housing in the places people want to live. I doubt the homeless care much for your NIMBY reasoning that helps keep regulations in place that make housing more expensive and lead to a situation where they have to live in tents.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You've never seen in because we've basically made it illegal for this to even happen over the last 70 years.

We've made it illegal to reverse sprawl? To revert developed land to undeveloped?

 

[fskimospy]

We've made it illegal to reverse sprawl? To revert developed land to undeveloped?

What you’re asking about doesn’t really happen because we have a massive shortage of housing. His point is that density prevents further sprawl as again, density and sprawl are mutually exclusive.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What you’re asking about doesn’t really happen because we have a massive shortage of housing. His point is that density prevents further sprawl as again, density and sprawl are mutually exclusive.

But, again, I've never seen density prevent sprawl. I've only seen it enhance sprawl as well.

 

[Brainonska511]

We've made it illegal to reverse sprawl? To revert developed land to undeveloped?

We've largely made infill development illegal, so housing needs keep getting filled by suburban and ex-urban sprawl. Not sure why this is so complicated.

 

[fskimospy]

But, again, I've never seen density prevent sprawl.

Can you give me an example of what density preventing sprawl would look like to you?

I've only seen it enhance sprawl as well.

Again, this is by definition impossible unless what you mean is when we build denser housing this causes developers to build additional housing that sits empty forever.

We have X people in the world. Density does not magically increase that number. They are either packed closely together (density) or are spread out (sprawl). It’s one or the other.

 

[JD50]

But, again, I've never seen density prevent sprawl. I've only seen it enhance sprawl as well.

Of course density prevents sprawl, if people can't build up they'll build out.

 

[JD50]

Can you give me an example of what density preventing sprawl would look like to you?

Again, this is by definition impossible unless what you mean is when we build denser housing this causes developers to build additional housing that sits empty forever.

We have X people in the world. Density does not magically increase that number. They are either packed closely together (density) or are spread out (sprawl). It’s one or the other.

Right. Like what does he thinks happen if you can't build up, the people that need somewhere to live just disappear?

 

[Brainonska511]

Right. Like what does he thinks happen if you can't build up, the people that need somewhere to live just disappear?

That's what the degrowthers like the OP hope for.

 

[fskimospy]

Right. Like what does he thinks happen if you can't build up, the people that need somewhere to live just disappear?

I am also confused. Every person living in a dense city would be definition live somewhere less dense if cities weren’t a thing.

 

[fskimospy]

That's what the degrowthers like the OP hope for.

If you look back through the many discussions on this topic Moonbeam has said the government should force people to live in the environment he personally prefers because they don’t know what they want and he does.

It’s absolutely evil, radical authoritarianism.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

We've largely made infill development illegal, so housing needs keep getting filled by suburban and ex-urban sprawl. Not sure why this is so complicated.

That's dumb, and something i wasn't aware of. Land should be used for what the best purpose is (within reason), and if there is no best purpose it should revert to nature.

Right. Like what does he thinks happen if you can't build up, the people that need somewhere to live just disappear?

I mean, ideally they find somewhere else to be, rather than there. I don't live in NYC specifically because there's so many goddamned people, regardless of the opportunity. If everyone in the US lived in MegaCity One, there's still sprawl, and no green spaces within (though without i'm sure it'll look great; outside of the radioactive wastelands I mean).

Can you give me an example of what density preventing sprawl would look like to you?

Small town. Moderate amount of SMH, some apartment complexes. Handful of eateries, shopping 15m away, maybe one market for food, one pharmacy, essentially a commuter town. Developer buys a few dozen acres of land, plops down a bunch of four-apartment quads. Half get sold quickly, half sit empty. New development attracts a few more businesses, who buy up more land, which gets built into various random shit that probably wasn't necessary (local banks, strip mall insurance companies, more gas stations, dollar general). More jobs creates more demand for housing depletes more land for growth.

What density preventing sprawl would look like to me would be for that small town to poll the local populace to see how many would be willing to sell in order to live in cheaper, denser housing. Land is approved for building for those people (+10% or whatever) in order to move people (who want) from low density housing to high density housing, then the old land get sold back to the city (probably funded by govt subsidy since we don't as a society don't inherently value green spaces) to be reverted to nature. Land doesn't get re-used for yet more housing/business.

 

[fskimospy]

That's dumb, and something i wasn't aware of. Land should be used for what the best purpose is (within reason), and if there is no best purpose it should revert to nature.

I mean, ideally they find somewhere else to be, rather than there. I don't live in NYC specifically because there's so many goddamned people, regardless of the opportunity. If everyone in the US lived in MegaCity One, there's still sprawl, and no green spaces within (though without i'm sure it'll look great; outside of the radioactive wastelands I mean).


Small town. Moderate amount of SMH, some apartment complexes. Handful of eateries, shopping 15m away, maybe one market for food, one pharmacy, essentially a commuter town. Developer buys a few dozen acres of land, plops down a bunch of four-apartment quads. Half get sold quickly, half sit empty. New development attracts a few more businesses, who buy up more land, which gets built into various random shit that probably wasn't necessary (local banks, strip mall insurance companies, more gas stations, dollar general). More jobs creates more demand for housing depletes more land for growth.

What density preventing sprawl would look like to me would be for that small town to poll the local populace to see how many would be willing to sell in order to live in cheaper, denser housing. Land is approved for building for those people (+10% or whatever) in order to move people (who want) from low density housing to high density housing, then the old land get sold back to the city (probably funded by govt subsidy since we don't as a society don't inherently value green spaces) to be reverted to nature. Land doesn't get re-used for yet more housing/business.

Your example requires new people being magically zapped into existence. Anyone moving to a denser place is leaving a less dense place, preventing sprawl.

Again, density BY DEFINITION prevents sprawl.

 

[JD50]

I mean, ideally they find somewhere else to be, rather than there. I don't live in NYC specifically because there's so many goddamned people, regardless of the opportunity. If everyone in the US lived in MegaCity One, there's still sprawl, and no green spaces within (though without i'm sure it'll look great; outside of the radioactive wastelands I mean).

Ok, so they find somewhere else to live, and what happens there? Is there sprawl for their new home or do they live in high density housing? Or is there a third option where there's no sprawl, no high density housing, and they magically find somewhere to live?

 

[JD50]

Your example requires new people being magically zapped into existence. Anyone moving to a denser place is leaving a less dense place, preventing sprawl.

Again, density BY DEFINITION prevents sprawl.

They also need to magically disappear when they choose to not live in a city

 

[Zorba]

So you're subscribing to the idea of "induced demand" for housing? You certainly see that concept on roadways (just one more lane will fix traffic), but I don't think we've ever seen that play out for housing. Plenty of cheap housing in places like St. Louis and Detroit, but you don't exactly see people flocking to those booming metropolises.

I'm not saying I agree, but it could exist. If housing was cheap you'd have more people buying second homes and you'd probably have less room mates and kids moving out sooner. Similar to the idea of induced demand on roads, new highways don't create cars, either.

But the reality is building past low density apartments costs a lot of money, so you already have to have a high demand area to justify the construction.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm not saying I agree, but it could exist. If housing was cheap you'd have more people buying second homes and you'd probably have less room mates and kids moving out sooner. Similar to the idea of induced demand on roads, new highways don't create cars, either.

But the reality is building past low density apartments costs a lot of money, do you already have to have a high demand area to justify the construction.

The good news is the demand already exists many metro areas to support "higher cost" construction. And people being able to choose to live without roommates because costs come down is a good thing. Less crowding because there is more housing units per some unit area is a good thing.

Higher cost is also a bit of a misnomer though: per unit cost can be much lower than a single family home in the same spot.